Eating problems are common in toddlers and in the majority are associated with normal growth, although weight faltering is more common in such children. Excessive milk-drinking may be a cause of low appetite at meal times.
Paediatric in-patients are at high risk of malnutrition but validated paediatric screening tools suitable for use by nursing staff are scarce. The present study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the new Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS). During a pilot introduction in a tertiary referral hospital and a district general hospital, two research dietitians assessed the validity of the PYMS by comparing the nursing screening outcome with a full dietetic assessment, anthropometry and body composition measurements. An additional PYMS form was completed by the research dietitians to assess its inter-rater reliability with the nursing staff and for comparison with the Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP) and the Paediatric Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment (SGNA). Of the 247 children studied, the nurse-rated PYMS identified 59 % of those rated at high risk by full dietetic assessment. Of those rated at high risk by the nursing PYMS, 47 % were confirmed as high risk on full assessment. The PYMS showed moderate agreement with the full assessment (k ¼ 0·46) and interrater reliability (k ¼ 0·53) with the research dietitians. Children who screened as high risk for malnutrition had significantly lower lean mass index than those at moderate or low risk, but no difference in fat. When completed by the research dietitians, the PYMS showed similar sensitivity to the STAMP, but a higher positive predictive value. The SGNA had higher specificity than the PYMS but much lower sensitivity. The PYMS screening tool is an acceptable screening tool for identifying children at risk of malnutrition without producing unmanageable numbers of false-positive cases.
The results support the proposal that repetitive behaviours represent a continuum of functioning that extends to the typically developing child population.
Objectives To test the efficacy of treatment for unilateral visual loss detected by preschool vision screening and the extent to which effectiveness varies with initial severity. Design Randomised controlled trial of full treatment with glasses and patching, if required, compared with glasses only or no treatment. Masked assessment of best corrected acuity after one year of follow up. Setting Eight UK eye departments. Participants 177 children aged 3-5 years with mild to moderate unilateral impairment of acuity (6/9 to 6/36) detected by screening. Results Children in the full and glasses treatment groups had incrementally better visual acuity at follow up than children who received no treatment, but the mean treatment effect between full and no treatment was equivalent to only one line on a Snellen chart (0.11 log units; 95% confidence interval 0.050 to 0.171; P < 0.0001). The effects of treatment depended on initial acuity: full treatment showed a substantial effect in the moderate acuity group (6/36 to 6/18 at recruitment) and no significant effect in the mild acuity group (6/9 to 6/12 at recruitment) (P = 0.006 for linear regression interaction term). For 64 children with moderate acuity loss the treatment effect was 0.20 log units, equivalent to one to two lines on a Snellen chart. When all children had received treatment, six months after the end of the trial, there was no significant difference in acuity between the groups. Conclusions Treatment is worth while in children with the poorest acuity, but in children with mild (6/9 to 6/12) unilateral acuity loss there was little benefit. Delay in treatment until the age of 5 did not seem to influence effectiveness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.